Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner

10
Dale H. Schunk and Carol A. Mullen

Abstract
Student underachievement brought about by low academic motivation is a
major factor contributing to school dropout. Motivation affects students’
engagement, or how their cognitions, behaviors, and affects are energized,
directed, and sustained during academic activities. According to Bandura’s
social cognitive theory, self-efficacy (perceived capabilities for learning or
performing actions at designated levels) is a key cognitive variable influ-
encing motivation and engagement. The conceptual framework of social
cognitive theory is described to include the roles played by vicarious,
symbolic, and self-regulatory processes. We discuss how self-efficacy
affects motivation through goals and self-evaluations of progress and how
various contextual factors may influence self-efficacy. Research is
described that relates self-efficacy to underachievement and dropout. This
chapter concludes with programs designed to raise school success and rec-
ommendations for future research.

School dropout is a major issue in the USA. It is (Bloom, 2010; Bloom & Haskins, 2010).
estimated that in the 50 largest US cities, the Although dropout affects youth from all back-
dropout rate is almost 50%, with 3.5–6 million grounds, culturally ethnic and immigrant students
students dropping out of high school each year are disproportionately represented: “The dropout
rate is 6% for whites, 12% for blacks, and 12%
for Hispanics” (Bloom, 2010, p. 91). Dropout
D.H. Schunk, Ph.D. (*)
incurs a major economic loss, likely totaling
Department of Teacher Education and Higher Education, more than $3 trillion over the next decade (PR
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Newswire, 2009). Dropout also perpetuates such
Greensboro, NC 27412, USA social problems as unemployment, underemploy-
e-mail: [email protected]
ment, welfare, teen pregnancy, and incarceration
C.A. Mullen, Ph.D. (PR Newswire, 2009).
Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural
Foundations, The University of North Carolina
Underlying these widespread problems is the
at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA disengagement of urban youth in their learning and
e-mail: [email protected] success (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

S.L. Christenson et al. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 219

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
220 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

Approximately 72% of high school students who for learning or performing actions at designated
perform poorly are from lower-income families, levels (Bandura, 1977a, 1997). Research has
and 53% of English-language learners are under- shown that a higher sense of self-efficacy can
performing (Cuban, 2010). These trends of positively affect learning, achievement, self-
dropout and underachievement continue at the regulation, and motivational outcomes such as
postsecondary level, with disproportionate attri- individuals’ choices of activities, effort, persis-
tion among undergraduates from nontraditional tence, and interests (Bandura, 1997; Pajares,
groups, including culturally ethnic students, immi- 1996; Schunk & Pajares, 2009; Usher & Pajares,
grants, and nontraditional students (e.g., older, 2008). Self-efficacious students are motivated
part-time; Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993; and engaged in learning, which promotes their
Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). competence as learners. Conversely, a lower
Many factors contribute to school dropout, but sense of self-efficacy for learning and performing
a major one is underachievement brought about well in school can negatively affect students’
by low academic motivation. As used in this motivation and engagement (Pajares, 1996),
chapter, motivation refers to the process whereby increasing the risk of underachievement and
goal-directed activities are energized, directed, dropout. Teachers who help students experience
and sustained (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). success by fostering their development of skills,
Motivation is a complex process that can be learning strategies, and a positive outlook on life
affected by personal factors (e.g., individuals’ and their future can positively impact self-effi-
thoughts, beliefs, and emotions) and contextual cacy in their classrooms (McInerney, 2004; Miller
factors, such as classrooms, peer groups, and & Brickman, 2004).
community and home influences. Despite the solid foundation of self-efficacy
Herein we present the case that low academic research pertaining to school-aged children and
motivation perpetuates poor engagement in learn- school-to-work interventions, fewer scholars
ing and that certain strategies and interventions have assessed its relevance for urban youth strug-
can make a difference in the education of gling at school. Given that school dropout affects
America’s youth. By engagement, we mean the youth from all backgrounds but particularly those
manifestation of students’ motivation, or how who are culturally and economically disadvan-
their cognitions, behaviors, and affects are ener- taged, the self-efficacy of urban youth has unde-
gized, directed, and sustained during learning and niable importance (Mullen & Schunk, 2011).
other academic activities (Skinner, Kindermann, Self-efficacy has been identified as a predictor of
Connell, & Wellborn, 2009). Although different adolescent success in life (Perry, DeWine, Duffy,
theoretical approaches explain student motiva- & Vance, 2007).
tion and engagement, we utilize Bandura’s Examining the predictors of academic self-
(1977b, 1986, 1997, 2001) social cognitive the- efficacy in ethnic adolescents to include resil-
ory of psychological functioning, which empha- iency and persistence despite hardships and
sizes that much human learning and behavior obstacles, perceived control over one’s own suc-
occur in social environments. By interacting with cesses, and school and community engagement,
others, people learn knowledge, skills, strategies, will contribute to the emerging literature on this
beliefs, norms, and attitudes. Students act in topic (Vick & Packard, 2008). Our particular
accordance with their beliefs about their capabili- focus is the roles of personal and contextual fac-
ties and the expected outcomes of their actions. tors on disadvantaged adolescents’ academic
Social cognitive researchers have explored the motivation.
operation and outcomes of cognitive and affec- We next describe the conceptual framework of
tive processes hypothesized to underlie motiva- social cognitive theory and the key roles played
tion (Pintrich, 2003; Schunk & Pajares, 2009). by vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory pro-
Our interest is in a key social cognitive vari- cesses. We then discuss self-efficacy and the pro-
able: self-efficacy, or one’s perceived capabilities cess whereby self-efficacy affects motivation
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 221

through goals and self-evaluations of progress, as associated with them (e.g., low skills) rather than
well as how self-efficacy can affect student based on their actual capabilities (person → social/
engagement and how contextual factors may environment). In turn, environmental feedback
influence self-efficacy. The research evidence can affect self-efficacy, such as when teachers
presented relates self-efficacy to underachieve- encourage students by communicating, “I know
ment and dropout. We also briefly highlight some you can do this” (social/environment → person).
programs designed to enhance school success The link between behaviors and environmen-
through such means as school engagement, com- tal factors is evident in many instructional
munity activism, and career decision-making. sequences. Environmental factors can direct
Recommendations for future research conclude behaviors, such as when teachers point to a dis-
this chapter. play and say, “Look here,” which students do
with little conscious effort (social/environ-
ment → behavior). Behaviors can alter learners’
Conceptual Framework instructional environments. When students give
incorrect answers, teachers are apt to reteach the
material, temporarily discontinuing the lesson
Reciprocal Interactions
(behavior → social/environment).
A central tenet of Bandura’s (1977b, 1986, 1997, Social cognitive theory presents a view of
2001) social cognitive theory is that human behav- human agency in which individuals proactively
ior operates within a framework of triadic recipro- engage in creating their own career and life tra-
cality involving interactions among personal jectories (Schunk & Pajares, 2005). They hold
factors (e.g., cognitions, beliefs, skills, affects), beliefs that allow them to exert control over their
behaviors, and social/environmental factors thoughts, feelings, and actions. In reciprocal
(Fig. 10.1). These interacting influences can be fashion, people influence and are influenced by
demonstrated using self-efficacy as the personal their actions and environments. But the scope of
factor. Regarding the interaction of self-efficacy this reciprocal influence is broader than individu-
and behavior, studies have shown that self-efficacy als because they live in social environments.
influences achievement behaviors such as task Collective agency refers to people’s shared beliefs
choice, effort, persistence, and use of effective about what they are capable of accomplishing as
learning strategies (person → behavior; Schunk & a group. Groups, too, affect and are affected by
Pajares, 2009). These behaviors also affect self- their actions and environments.
efficacy. As students perform tasks and observe
their learning progress, self-efficacy for continued
Vicarious, Symbolic,
learning is enhanced (behavior → person).
Many students with learning disabilities hold
and Self-Regulatory Processes
low self-efficacy for performing well (Licht &
Social cognitive theory stresses that people pos-
Kistner, 1986). The link between personal and
sess capabilities that distinguish them from oth-
contextual factors is seen when individuals react
ers and motivate them to strive for a sense of
to these students based on attributes typically
agency (Bandura, 1986). Among the most promi-
nent of these are vicarious, symbolic, and self-
regulatory processes.

Vicarious processes. Much human learning occurs

vicariously through observing modeled perfor-
mances (e.g., live, filmed symbolic; Bandura,
Fig. 10.1 Reciprocal interactions in social cognitive 1977b). The capability for learning vicariously
theory allows individuals to acquire beliefs, cognitions,
222 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

affects, skills, strategies, and behaviors from

observations of others in their social environ-
Self-Efficacy
ments and vicariously via media outlets, which
Self-efficacy is a key personal factor in social
saves time because learning is not demonstrated
cognitive theory, which postulates that achieve-
when it occurs. This capability also allows people
ment depends on interactions among behaviors,
to shape their lives because they proactively select
personal factors, and social/environmental condi-
environmental features (e.g., individuals, materi-
tions (Perry et al., 2007). Academic self-efficacy,
als) to which they want to attend. Thus, students
or the perceived confidence in one’s ability to
who want to become teachers enroll in education
execute actions for attaining academic goals,
programs and put themselves in situations where
plays a crucial role in adolescent motivation and
they can learn vicariously, such as by observing
learning. Self-efficacy is hypothesized to influ-
and working with classroom teachers.
ence behaviors and environments and be affected
by them (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy
Symbolic processes. Symbolic processes involve
affects choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and
language, mathematical and scientific notation,
achievement. Research in academic settings
iconography, and cognition. These processes help
shows that students who feel efficacious about
people adapt to and alter their environments
learning tend to be competent and engaged and
(Bandura, 1986). They use symbolic processes
are likely to set learning goals, use effective
when they formulate thoughts and take action
learning strategies, monitor comprehension,
and, perhaps unconsciously, to guide their actions.
evaluate goal progress, and create supportive
Cognitively in tune, students do not simply react
environments (Schunk & Pajares, 2005). In turn,
to events but rather resolve issues and generate
self-efficacy is influenced by the outcomes of
new courses of action. Symbolic processes also
behaviors (e.g., goal progress, achievement) and
foster verbal and written communications, which
by inputs from the environment (e.g., feedback
further promotes learning.
from teachers, comparisons with peers).
Individuals’ self-efficacy impacts motivation and
Self-regulatory processes. Social cognitive theory
learning, as well as decisions and events that
assigns a prominent role to self-regulation, or the
affect their lives (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
processes individuals use to activate and sustain
their behaviors, cognitions, and affects that are
focused on attaining goals (Zimmerman, 2000).
People regulate their behaviors to conform to Sources of Information
their internal standards and goals. Before embark- About Self-Efficacy
ing on a task, individuals determine their goals
and what strategies to use, and they feel self-effi- Information for assessing one’s self-efficacy is
cacious about performing well. As they engage in acquired from actual performances, observations
tasks, they monitor their performances, assess of others (vicarious experiences), social persua-
their progress toward goals, and decide whether sion, and physiological indexes (Table 10.1;
their strategy needs adjusting. As tasks are com- Bandura, 1997). Because these are tangible indi-
pleted, they reflect on their experiences, make cators of individuals’ capabilities, one’s perfor-
modifications, and determine next steps. Believing mances constitute the most reliable information
they have learned and made progress strengthens (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Interpretations of
their self-efficacy and motivates further learning. one’s performances as successful raise self-effi-
People who are continually engaged while learn- cacy whereas perceived failures may lower it,
ing are apt to be self-regulated (Schunk & Pajares, although an occasional failure or success should
2009; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). not have much impact.
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 223

Table 10.1 Self-efficacy sources and consequences affective reactions can lower self-efficacy
Sources of self-efficacy information (Zajacova et al., 2005). Conversely, when people
• Mastery experiences (actual performances) feel less stressful (e.g., anxiety subsides while
• Vicarious (modeled) experiences taking a test), they may experience higher self-
• Forms of social persuasion
• Physiological indexes efficacy for performing well.
Consequences of self-efficacy Sources of self-efficacy information do not
• Motivational outcomes (task choice, effort, persistence) automatically affect self-efficacy (Bandura,
• Learning 1997). Individuals interpret the results of events,
• Achievement and these interpretations generate information on
• Self-regulation
which judgments are based (Schunk & Pajares,
2009). Some ways that research has shown to
Interpretations of one’s performances are effectively build students’ self-efficacy are to
important, along with the performances them- have students set difficult but attainable goals
selves. Individuals engage in metacognitive and assess their own goal progress (mastery
mediation by thinking of areas of their learning experiences), allow students to observe models
such as planning and problem-solving. In a study similar to themselves learning skills (vicarious
of college undergraduates (mixed gender, no race experiences), and provide students with feedback
specified), Coutinho (2008) found that students’ that links their learning progress to their dili-
metacognition and self-efficacy influenced their gently applying a learning strategy (social per-
performances. suasion; Schunk, 1995).
Individuals acquire information about their Important as it is, self-efficacy is not the only
capabilities through social comparisons with oth- influence on behavior; no amount of it will pro-
ers (Bandura, 1997). Similarity to others is a cue duce a competent performance when requisite
for gauging one’s self-efficacy (Schunk, 1995). skills are lacking (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Also
Observing others succeed can raise observers’ important are outcome expectations (beliefs
self-efficacy and motivate them to try the task at about the likely consequences of actions;
hand because they are apt to believe that if others Bandura, 1997) and values (perceptions of the
can achieve, they can as well. But a vicarious importance and utility of learning and acting in
increase in self-efficacy can be negated by subse- given ways; Wigfield, Tonks, & Eccles, 2004).
quent difficulties. Persons who observe peers fail Even students who feel efficacious about per-
may believe they lack competence, which can forming well in school may disengage from
dissuade them from attempting the task. learning if they do not value it or believe that
People also may assess self-efficacy when they negative outcomes may result, such as rejection
receive persuasive information from others (e.g., by peers. Assuming the activation of requisite
“I know you can do this”; Bandura, 1997); how- skills, positive values, and outcome expectations,
ever, such persuasion must be credible for people self-efficacy is a key determinant of individuals’
to believe that success is attainable. Although pos- motivation, learning, self-regulation, and achieve-
itive feedback can raise individuals’ self-efficacy, ment (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
the effects will not endure if they subsequently
perform poorly (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
Physiological and emotional reactions such as Consequences of Self-Efficacy
anxiety and stress also provide input about self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Strong emotional reac- Self-efficacy has diverse effects on various moti-
tions can signal anticipated success or failure. vational outcomes associated with student
When people experience negative thoughts and engagement, including task choice, effort, and
fears about their capabilities (e.g., feeling ner- persistence (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996;
vous when thinking about taking a test), those Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009; Table 10.1).
224 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

Individuals typically select tasks and activities at effort needed to succeed and evaluate progress.
which they feel competent. Self-efficacy can Goals also are distinguished by how far they
affect how much cognitive and physical effort project into the future. Because it is easier to
people expend on an activity, how long they per- determine progress toward goals that are closer at
sist when they encounter difficulties, and their hand, proximal (short-term) goals enhance self-
levels of learning and achievement. Students with efficacy and motivation better than do distant
high self-efficacy tend to set challenging goals, (long-term) goals (Bandura & Schunk, 1981).
work diligently, persist in the face of failure, and Goal difficulty, which refers to the level of task
recover their sense of self-efficacy after setbacks. proficiency required as assessed against a stan-
As a consequence, they develop higher levels dard, influences the effort people expend. In gen-
of competence. In contrast, those with low eral, learners work harder to attain more challenging
self-efficacy may set easier goals, expend mini- goals; however, perceived difficulty and motiva-
mal effort, disassociate as difficulties arise, and tion do not bear an unlimited positive relation to
feel dejected by failure, all of which negatively one another. Goals that students believe are overly
affect engagement and learning. trying can obstruct motivation because they hold
low self-efficacy for attaining them. Learners are
apt to feel self-efficacious for attaining goals that
Goals and Self-Evaluations of Progress they perceive as difficult but attainable.
A distinction can be drawn between learning
Social cognitive theory highlights the importance and performance goals. A learning goal refers to
of various symbolic processes for motivation. what knowledge, behavior, skill, or strategy stu-
Among the most critical are self-efficacy, goals, dents are to acquire, and a performance goal
and self-evaluations of goal progress, which work refers to what task is to be completed. These
together to enhance motivation and engagement goals can have differential effects on achieve-
in learning. ment behaviors (Anderman & Wolters, 2006).
Goals, or what people are consciously trying Learning goals motivate by focusing and sustain-
to attain, are symbolic processes that instigate ing attention on both processes and strategies that
and sustain actions. Because goals do not affect help students acquire competence and new skills.
behavior without commitment, learners must Self-efficacy is substantiated as they work on the
commit to attempting goals (Locke & Latham, task and assess their progress (Schunk, 1996).
2002). As learners work on a task, they compare In contrast, performance goals focus attention
their current performance with their specific on completing tasks. They may not highlight the
goals. Positive self-evaluations of progress value of the processes and strategies underlying
strengthen self-efficacy and sustain motivation. task completion or raise self-efficacy for learning.
A perceived discrepancy between present perfor- As they engage in tasks, students may not com-
mance and the goal may create dissatisfaction, pare their present and past performances to deter-
which can propel effort. Goals motivate learners mine progress. Performance goals can lead to
to expend the effort necessary and persist at the social comparisons with the work of others to
task (Locke & Latham, 2002), resulting in better determine progress. These comparisons can
performance and enhanced engagement. lower self-efficacy when students experience
Although goals are motivational catalysts, learning difficulties, which adversely affects
their effects depend on their properties: specificity, motivation and engagement in learning.
proximity, and difficulty. Goals that include spe- Research supports these hypothesized effects
cific performance standards are more likely to of learning and performance goals. Schunk and
activate self-evaluations of progress and enhance Ertmer (1999) conducted two studies with col-
self-efficacy and motivation than are general lege undergraduates as they worked on computer
goals (e.g., “Do your best”; Bandura, 1986). projects. Students received the goal of learning
Specific goals are a better indicator of the kind of computer applications or the goal of performing
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 225

them. In the first study, half of the students in learning and know how to keep themselves from
each goal condition evaluated their learning prog- becoming discouraged. For example, if they can-
ress midway through the instructional program. not answer the easier questions on a test, they
The learning goal led to higher self-efficacy, self- change their strategy by moving onto questions
judged progress, and self-regulatory competence they can answer and reassuring themselves that
and strategy use. The opportunity to self-evaluate they are making progress while internally check-
progress promoted self-efficacy. In the second ing their understanding.
study, self-evaluation students assessed their Self-efficacy comes into play at all points in
progress after each instructional session. Frequent engaged learning. Prior to starting on a task, stu-
self-evaluation produced comparable results dents hold a sense of self-efficacy for learning
when linked with a learning or performance goal. (Schunk, 1995). Their self-efficacy is substanti-
These results suggest that multiple self-evalua- ated as they work on tasks and observe the prog-
tions of learning progress can raise motivation ress being made toward their goal. Self-efficacy
and achievement outcomes. helps to keep students motivated and engaged in
learning activities. Students who feel efficacious
about learning but perceive that their progress is
Self-Efficacy and Student Engagement inadequate make adjustments to improve their
learning (e.g., changing strategy, seeking help,
Engaged Learning improving one’s environment). Such modifica-
tions help foster engagement in learning.
Student engagement in learning reflects cogni-
tive, behavioral, and affective variables that encom-
pass aspects of motivation and self-regulation Contextual Influences
(Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 2000). Among cog-
nitive variables, students engaged in learning As noted, self-efficacy is affected by contextual
have a sense of self-efficacy for learning. They factors such as familial, sociocultural, and educa-
hold positive outcome expectations and value the tional influences that are critical for engaged
learning. They set goals and evaluate their prog- learning.
ress, and they decide what they believe are effec-
tive strategies for learning the material and Familial influences. Families influence self-effi-
succeeding. They focus their attention on the task cacy in different ways, such as through their capi-
and strive to avoid distraction. tal. Capital includes resources and assets (Bradley
Students who are engaged also display pro- & Corwyn, 2002), primarily material resources
ductive achievement behaviors. They create work (e.g., income), human resources (e.g., education),
environments conducive to learning. Disadvan- and social resources (e.g., networks). Cultural
taged students must especially endeavor to over- capital refers to the wealthy norm reflected in an
come barriers where they lack necessary materials accumulation of specific types of knowledge,
and equipment. While engaged with tasks, stu- skills, and abilities that are acquired by families
dents expend effort and persist when they and valued in school settings (e.g., technological
encounter difficulties. If they become stuck, they resources such as computers in the home; Yosso,
seek help (e.g., teachers, parents, peers, manuals). 2005). Children are motivated to learn when the
Engaged learners self-monitor to ensure good use home has activities and materials that arouse their
of time. They may keep records of their accom- curiosity and offer challenges that can be met
plished tasks and what remains to be done. (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Parents who are better
Affective variables include creating and main- educated and have social connections are apt to
taining a positive attitude toward learning. Engaged stress education and enroll their children in
learners value learning; by succeeding, they expe- school and extramural programs that foster their
rience a sense of pride. They are strategic about self-efficacy and learning.
226 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

Families that foster a responsive and support- positive visions of themselves over time and as
ive environment, encourage exploration and related to school, career, and life. Metacognitive
stimulate curiosity, and facilitate learning experi- processing of information and development are
ences accelerate their children’s intellectual fostered as longer-term goals are formed (e.g.,
development. Because mastery experiences con- “future time perspective”), and self-schemas
stitute a powerful source of self-efficacy infor- (e.g., “possible selves”) are imagined (Borkowski
mation, parents who arrange for their children to & Thorpe, 1994; Shell & Husman, 2001). Future
experience mastery in concert with their personal time perspective is not a self-schema per se, but
interests are apt to develop efficacious youngsters these two concepts share similarities. Notably,
(Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Activities conducive future time perspective is implicit in an individu-
to learning may include playing a musical instru- al’s capability for projecting possible selves into
ment or a sport in which children have the free- the near and distant future (Miller & Brickman,
dom to explore. In contrast, parents can negatively 2004; Shell & Husman, 2001; Simons, Vansteen-
affect their children’s academic competence and kiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004).
achievement through such behaviors as providing For example, students who relate to their school
rewards extrinsic to academic tasks, making subjects in the context of what they want to become
unrealistic demands, avoiding conflict arising (e.g., lawyer, teacher) improve their mental com-
from learning expectations, and not valuing self- petence and engagement in learning goals and
directed learning (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). tasks (Shell & Husman, 2001). Based on their
Another means of influence is vicariously study involving almost 200 primarily White under-
through role models. Family members who model graduate students, Shell and Husman found that
ways to cope with difficulties, persistence, and students’ future time beliefs (i.e., relative impor-
effort strengthen their children’s self-efficacy. tance of attaining immediate versus long-term
Family members also provide persuasive informa- future outcomes) were associated with higher self-
tion. Parents who encourage their children to try efficacy, achievement, and study time and effort.
different activities as appropriate to their ages Youth and children from different sociocul-
facilitate their capability for welcoming challenges tural backgrounds must be guided to express
and meeting them (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). future-oriented conceptions of themselves (pos-
The plight of delayed adulthood affects self- sible selves) and of society (Borkowski & Thorpe,
efficacy as well. Western societies now have a 1994). The idea is that the present self imagines
longer transition to adulthood and thus a pro- the future, envisioning a future self to orient cur-
longed time for youth to finish school, become rent choices and behaviors. Notably, short- and
employed, and start families (Settersten & Ray, long-range goals are critical building blocks for
2010). Youth from impoverished backgrounds do the development of possible selves, which repre-
not meet these adult milestones at the same rate sent goals and opportunities for making execu-
as their more privileged peers. Modern families tive decisions about the future (Borkowski &
can experience undue stress where their youth Thorpe, 1994; Oyserman & James, 2009).
remain semidependent for different types of Teachers who have a future time perspective can
assistance. Youth from low-income families influence engagement and motivate students by
receive approximately 70% less material assis- explaining the “future importance of their present
tance than those in the top quarter of the income behavior” in fostering ideas of development,
distribution (Settersten & Ray, 2010). identity, and community (Simons et al., 2004,
p. 122). While student goal setting needs to be
Sociocultural influences. A major factor associ- clear and specific, future goals—and especially their
ated with self-efficacy and achievement is socio- anticipated benefits—also play a role in motiva-
economic status. Borkowski and Thorpe (1994) tion (Bandura, 1986). Optimal outcomes can be
reviewed empirical studies and found that increased where students understand that their
students from lower-income families tend to lack “current task engagement is instrumental to attain
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 227

a future goal” (Simons et al., p. 122). Intrinsic receptive to imagining their futures and project-
benefits (e.g., personal development) and extrin- ing themselves into colleges and jobs.
sic benefits (e.g., career satisfaction) can increase Peers constitute another sociocultural influ-
overall motivation by way of instructional inter- ence. With development, peers become important
ventions that change individuals’ limited attitudes influences on self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece,
toward their future and time. 2006). Parents who steer their children toward
Teachers engage their students by taking into efficacious peers provide opportunities for vicari-
account each individual’s capacity to think about ous increases in self-efficacy. When children
the future and by being attuned to their discovery observe their peers succeed, they are likely to
process. One direction for personal development experience higher self-efficacy and motivation.
involves integrating the meaning or instrumental Social influence also operates through peer
value of activities into one’s concept of self networks, or groups of friends and others with
(Husman & Lens, 1999). Importantly, as Miller whom students associate. Students who belong to
and Brickman (2004) attest, teachers exert socio- networks tend to be similar (Cairns, Cairns, &
cultural influence as role models when they help Neckerman, 1989), which enhances the likeli-
students understand what possibilities can be hood of influence by modeling. Networks help
acted upon in their environment and when they define students’ opportunities for interactions and
assist with problem-solving in such areas as lim- observations of others’ interactions, as well as
ited knowledge of one’s context and goal setting their access to activities. Over time, network
for achieving future goals. On the other hand, members tend to become even more similar, as in
teachers must be aware of students’ impressions the case of racially and psychologically identified
of or beliefs about negative teacher bias and/or members. Some researchers, such as Arroyo and
obstacles to learning. Teachers can exert a positive Zigler (1995) who studied African American and
influence by changing the classroom environ- White peer groups in urban high schools, have
ment, modifying their instructional or interper- found that the “racial identification” can “impact
sonal strategies, or addressing students’ individual academic achievement and affective states”
goals (Miller & Brickman, 2004). where members believe that others hold a nega-
Possible selves is a concept that places value tive perception of their group (p. 912). The
on unrealized but better selves and habits or ori- African American participants reported having
entations that learners wish to possess. Habits lessened their identification and engagement with
such as persistence, flexibility, and civic centering their racial group, concerned about jeopardizing
are high-level ideas that should be integrated in the approval of nonmembers.
the early stages of students’ education (Settersten Peer groups promote motivational socializa-
& Ray, 2010). Because a gap exists between the tion when perceived in reassuring ways. Changes
present self that dwells on what is and the possi- in children’s motivation across the school year are
ble self on what can be, individuals mentally predicted by their peer group membership
strain to see the future. In a 5-year study of the (Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson, 1996).
motivational levels of Native Americans and Children affiliated with highly motivated groups
White Americans, McInerney, Hinkley, Dowson, change positively, whereas those in less motivated
and Van Etten (1998) found that middle school- groups change negatively. Steinberg, Brown, and
ers generally experienced difficulty in imagining Dornbusch (1996) tracked students throughout
the future (e.g., employability and other long- their high school years, finding that those with
term goals). Students may need to be encouraged similar grades but affiliated with academically
to connect their present and future goals by deter- oriented crowds achieved more than those affili-
mining an instrumental route to the future ated with less academically inclined peers. Peer
(McInerney, 2004). McInerney et al. (1998) group academic socialization can influence the
found that some of the middle schoolers, by the academic self-efficacy of individual members and
time they reached high school, became more their groups (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
228 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

Another influence on academic self-efficacy is (1995) found that mathematics self-efficacy had a
perceived stress and anxiety. Stress has the poten- direct effect on performance and that it mediated
tial to depress students’ self-efficacy, especially the influence of mental ability on performance.
among disadvantaged college populations (e.g., Experimental research has shown that instruc-
nontraditional, immigrant, and minority; Zajacova tional and social practices that convey to students
et al., 2005) and urban high school students that they are making progress and becoming
(Gillock & Reyes, 1999). Although stress affects competent learners raise self-efficacy, motiva-
performance, self-efficacy has been shown to be tion, and achievement (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
the stronger influence, as demonstrated by Pajares Some beneficial instructional and social practices
and Kranzler (1995) who found that mathe- are having students pursue proximal and specific
matics anxiety exerted a weaker influence than goals, using social models in instruction, provid-
self-efficacy on high school students’ mathemati- ing feedback indicating competence, having stu-
cal performances. Zajacova et al. assessed self- dents self-monitor and evaluate their learning
efficacy and the stress of freshmen immigrant progress, and teaching students to use metacogni-
and minority college students. While they found tive strategies while learning (Coutinho, 2008;
that social stress did not seem to have a negative Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Other benefits on stu-
effect on the students’ GPA and credits, stress did dents’ self-efficacy occur from role models who
seem to have an effect, albeit marginal, on persis- provide encouragement of and high expectations
tence and enrollment. for achievement, a feeling of control over and
Researchers have emphasized the important empowerment within one’s environment, and
role of self-efficacy in alleviating the effect of rewards for doing well in school (Jonson-Reid,
stressors on perceived stress and academic suc- Davis, Saunders, Williams, & Williams, 2005;
cess (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Zajacova et al., Miller & Brickman, 2004).
2005). Minority and immigrant students experi- Research also shows that competence beliefs
ence “acculturative stress,” making them more such as self-efficacy, as well as academic motiva-
susceptible to social stress than native-born and tion, often decline as students advance through
White students (Zajacova et al., 2005). For such school (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998;
reasons, King (2005) argued that despite the Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield,
increasing diversity within their classrooms, 2002). However, a few studies caution that the
many African American and Hispanic students attitudinal and developmental patterns of young
feel disengaged and culturally segregated. adolescents defy tidy summarization (McInerney,
2004). This widely reported decline has been
Educational influences. Self-efficacy has been attributed to such factors as increased competi-
explored in various educational domains and tion, more norm-referenced grading, less teacher
among individuals differing in age, developmen- attention on individual student progress, and
tal level, and cultural background. Researchers stresses associated with school transitions
have established that self-efficacy influences (Schunk & Meece, 2006). These and other school
individuals’ motivation, achievement, and self- problems, including teacher bias and obstacles to
regulation (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997; Schunk learning (Miller & Brickman, 2004), can nega-
& Pajares, 2009; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). tively affect the development of academic self-
Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) found that self- efficacy, especially among those who are poorly
efficacy accounted for 14% of the variance in prepared to cope with academic challenges and
academic performance. Stajkovic and Luthans first-generation college students (i.e., those whose
(1998) determined that self-efficacy resulted in a parents are not college graduates; Majer, 2009).
28% gain in performance. Schunk (1981) obtained Rigid sequences of instruction frustrate some stu-
evidence that self-efficacy exerted a direct effect dents, and lower-ability groupings can weaken
on children’s achievement and persistence in the self-efficacy of members. Classrooms in
mathematics. Additionally, Pajares and Kranzler which students are allowed to socially compare
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 229

their work can have the unintended effect of low- Self-Efficacy and Underachievement
ering self-efficacy for those who judge them-
selves deficient. The role of self-efficacy in student underachieve-
Periods of transition in schooling also can ment and dropout is receiving much attention
affect self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006). (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001; Hardre
Because elementary students remain with the & Reeve, 2003; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Rumberger
same teacher and peers for most of the day, teach- & Thomas, 2000). Factors contributing to under-
ers can better provide focused attention and feed- achievement and dropout are varied. These
back on their individual progress. In middle include poorly developed academic and social
school, though, children move among rooms for skills, little interest in school subjects, classrooms
subjects and are exposed to new peers. Learning that stress competition and ability social compari-
often is rote, evaluation becomes normative, and sons, low perceived value of school learning, little
teacher attention to individual progress lessens sense of belonging or relatedness to the school
(McInerney, 2004). The expanded social refer- environment, and no sense of purpose or vision of
ence group and the shift in evaluation standards the future (Alexander et al., 2001; McInerney,
require students to reassess their academic capa- 2004; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006;
bilities and regulate their learning, which can Wentzel, 2005). Students’ involvement and par-
lower self-efficacy for some. ticipation in school depend in part on how much
Educational influences on self-efficacy also the environment promotes their perceptions of
vary depending on the sociodemographics of the autonomy and relatedness, which in turn can
institution. Allen (1992) reviewed studies that influence self-efficacy and achievement (Hymel,
investigated educational advantage and disad- Comfort, Schonert-Reichl, & McDougall, 1996).
vantage as linked to type of institution and race. Parents, teachers, and peers affect students’ feel-
While historically Black colleges and universi- ings of autonomy and relatedness, and peer groups
ties (HBCUs) have fewer educational resources exert increasing influence during adolescence
than many predominately White institutions, the (Kindermann, 2007; Steinberg et al., 1996).
self-efficacy and competence of African American We have discussed how low self-efficacy can
students at HBCUs often is higher. For example, weaken motivation and lessen engagement in
they earn higher grades and are more academi- learning. But high self-efficacy does not automat-
cally socialized, better psychologically adjusted, ically translate into strong motivation and deep
and more culturally aware than their counterparts engagement. Students who feel efficacious about
at White institutions. On White college cam- learning but disconnected from the school envi-
puses, African American males may display ronment or mainstream society may be unmoti-
lower academic motivation, in contrast with vated and disengaged. Families supporting youth
African American females, whereas at HBCUs, who have low motivation to succeed and who are
African American males exhibit less anxiety disengaged from school, other educational insti-
about their peer networks and role. The African tutions, and military and service programs are
American females’ experience on White cam- particularly burdened. Families with low incomes
puses is thought to be mixed, though, with accel- and educational levels would benefit from new
eration in their assertiveness and competence due kinds of institutions that can help fulfill this nec-
to a decrease in the need to cultivate relationships essary role of provider and motivator, as well as
with same-race males, on the one hand, and feeling civic pathway to lifelong success (Gibbons &
socially isolated and even ostracized, on the other. Shoffner, 2004; Settersten & Ray, 2010).
Hence, educational institutions can play a signifi- Socially, structurally, and historically, students
cant role in the acculturative stress and adapta- who have been socialized through caste systems
tion of culturally ethnic and disadvantaged (i.e., segregated schools and neighborhoods)
students. have had to overcome multiple challenges to
230 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

nourish developing belief systems that support states and 15 countries prepares students, includ-
achievement and self-efficacy (Cuban, 2010). ing first-generation populations, for 4-year col-
Disadvantaged students’ academic self-efficacy leges (Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools, 2009).
and engagement are “deeply entangled in histo- Strategies that the AVID program uses include
ries of segregation, desegregation, and resegrega- developing analytic thinking, improving organi-
tion” (Cuban, 2010, p. 204), and the negative zational skills, providing tutoring support, and
consequences of school desegregation on Black exposing students to higher education institutions,
families have been documented (Horsford, 2010). all of which have the potential of raising
Cuban’s analysis of school district reforms and self-efficacy and motivation. We suspect that these
leadership is associated with failed initiatives programs might benefit from thorough evaluation
across the USA. Given the discriminatory forces of their effect on participants’ self-efficacy.
at work in socially stratified hierarchical systems, Studies of community college students indicate
lower socioeconomic status and personal cogni- that success interventions are necessary for facili-
tive deficits, then, are only part of a multifaceted tating the academic self-efficacy of diverse first-
problem that drives underachievement and generation students (Majer, 2009).
engagement. Other researchers also have viewed Despite the importance of such societal inter-
the poor academic performance of students of ventions, their degree of effectiveness has yet to
color, particularly African Americans and be established. Some postdropout programs
Hispanics, as perpetuated by systems of inequity select the most motivated and competent indi-
and other social ills that make academic efforts viduals, making high-risk dropouts especially
seem futile and penalizing (Horsford, 2010). To difficult to engage in any organized way (Bloom,
succeed academically and vocationally in main- 2010). While the long-term effects of such pro-
stream communities, disadvantaged students have grams are unknown, consolidated efforts across
had to minimize their associations with same- communities and the USA are needed. Such pro-
race peers, unlike privileged White students grams would gain from becoming more inclu-
(Arroyo & Zigler, 1995; Cuban, 2010). sive, cohesive, and intensive enough to engage
Intervention as seen in the forms of social youth over a long period.
policies and second-chance programs have been
in effect for years; however, many of these are
restrictive in scope and problem-based, not devel- Future Research Directions
opmental (Bloom, 2010). They often have not
assessed students’ self-efficacy. These programs There is much evidence that self-efficacy relates
should also focus on ethnic identity issues and to achievement outcomes including motivation
prevention orientation at the high school level or and engagement. Students who hold a sense of
earlier to not only be more effective but also have self-efficacy for learning and performing well are
a lasting effect (Bloom, 2010). Engagement strat- apt to be engaged, competent learners.
egies for assisting high-risk dropout populations But our discussion also raises many issues.
(e.g., immigrants, disabled, young mothers, fos- We recommend more research, especially on
ter care youth, and youth offenders) include iden- contextual factors and influences, students from
tity development, paid work, internships, job different cultures, and high-performing schools.
training, community service, and life skills.
Some of these components appear to be
evidenced in YouthBuild and Service and Contextual Influences on Self-Efficacy
Conservation Corps, and other programs. The
Challenge and City Year programs engage partici- Self-efficacy—a personal factor—can affect and
pants in residential building projects and team- be influenced by contextual factors. Enhancing
based civic work. For high school and middle students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and engage-
school students, the Advancement Via Individual ment requires that we understand how contextual
Determination (AVID) program found in 45 US variables operate.
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 231

We have noted that school transitions (e.g., Cross-Cultural Research

middle school to high school) bring about many
changes in learning contexts. Research is needed More needs to be known about students from dif-
that explores which contextual factors affect self- ferent cultures and countries. Most self-efficacy
efficacy and how students combine the influences studies have focused on students from the USA
of these new contexts with their prior experiences without sufficient attention on issues of diversity,
to arrive at self-efficacy judgments. New practi- especially as related to learning and engagement.
cal knowledge can inform the design of effective Cross-cultural studies will expand understanding
learning environments at school, home, and of the operation and generality of self-efficacy.
elsewhere. Klassen’s (2004b) review of 20 cross-cultural
Social factors are crucial. Students who lack a studies found that although self-efficacy was
sense of belonging within their school environ- lower for non-Western students (e.g., Asian and
ment are at risk for underachievement and dropout. Asian-immigrant students) than for Western stu-
Research on factors that affect students’ sense of dents (e.g., Western Europe, Canada, USA), the
belonging will suggest ways to improve their self- more modest self-efficacy expressed by non-
efficacy and engagement in learning. For example, Western students predicted academic outcomes
one self-efficacy-enhancing strategy involves acti- better than the higher self-efficacy of Western
vating possible selves by envisioning one’s future students. Klassen posited that immigration status
and understanding the links between present and and political factors can modify the mean self-
later goals (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; Jonson- efficacy of a cultural group.
Reid et al., 2005). Thus, high school students who Research that focuses on culturally ethnic
want to become medical doctors might picture students’ experiences at different types of institu-
themselves using science and mathematics in their tions is also needed, especially when unemploy-
work as doctors, which underscores the impor- ment and underemployment are on the increase
tance of their studying in their current courses. We (Allen, 1992). Hand in hand with this focus is
encourage probing of academic self-efficacy that of social policies and programs that can
among African American students and other non- address in a more specific way not only the lower
White student populations. Research can investi- achievement and higher attrition for African
gate their self-conceptions and possible selves, American college students but also what types of
perceived influences on their self-images and interventions and resources foster ethnic stu-
learning, and experiences of academic identifica- dents’ self-efficacy and success (Allen, 1992).
tion and disassociation (Kerpelman, Eryigit, & As Jonson-Reid et al. (2005) attest, given that
Stephens, 2008). research on self-efficacy has mostly focused on
Political factors are yet another important White students at predominately White institu-
contextual variable. For example, school districts tions, we need a better understanding of African
have been urged to systematically analyze the American youths’ sense of self-efficacy, in addi-
effects of policies aimed at increasing student tion to strategies that foster a belief in the value
achievement (Cuban, 2010). Studies of changes of education.
in test scores by both racial and socioeconomic Cultural dimensions such as individualism
status need to follow from district-level policy and collectivism may influence the relation of
implementation, with a focus on students’ self- self-efficacy to academic outcomes (Oettingen &
efficacy resulting from standardized testing. As Zosuls, 2006). Kim and Park (2006) argued that
another example, districts will need to anticipate theories that emphasize individualistic values—
the effect on student self-efficacy of new assign- such as self-efficacy—cannot explain the high
ment plans that enforce attendance zones closer achievement of East Asian students. Instead, the
to students’ homes. Critics argue that such initia- Confucian-based socialization practices that pro-
tives undermine achievement by resegregating mote close parent–child relationships seem
schools and confining ethnic students to their responsible for high levels of self-regulatory,
own neighborhoods (Cuban, 2010). relational, and social efficacy. In these cultures,
232 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

relational efficacy (i.e., perceived competence in in such environments could benefit from research
family and social relations), as well as social sup- that is attuned to this practical focus.
port from parents, may influence students’ aca-
demic performances. Self-efficacy may be more
other-oriented in some non-Western (particularly Conclusion
Asian) cultures than in Western cultures (Klassen,
2004a). In short, cross-cultural research has Social cognitive theory stresses learning from the
implications for educational practices, especially social environment. The conceptual focus of
given the influx of immigrants in US schools. Bandura’s theory postulates reciprocal interac-
tions among personal, behavioral, and social/
environmental factors. Self-efficacy is a critical
Self-Efficacy in High-Performing personal factor that can affect motivation, engage-
Schools ment, learning, and achievement. Self-efficacy is
shaped by personal, cultural, and social factors,
High-performing schools create a positive envi- making learning and achievement complex socio-
ronment for learning and support teachers and cultural phenomena.
students so that learning can occur. The literature Attention to ways of building students’ skills
on high-performing schools focuses on their and self-efficacy will help more learners become
effects on student achievement and teacher satis- academically motivated and engaged in learning.
faction (Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Sizer, These outcomes should help to diminish the
1992). We recommend that self-efficacy research- pervasive problem of student underachievement
ers devote attention to the features of high-per- and dropout. Important questions remain to be
forming schools that contribute to students’ and addressed by researchers and school leaders,
teachers’ self-efficacy. which will refine theory, expand practical knowl-
Some characteristics of high-performing edge, and help prepare better-educated citizens.
schools that should have positive effects on self- Finally, we urge legislators to advocate more
efficacy are parental involvement, supportive strongly for interventions that promote student
learning environments, and smooth transitions success, with the goals of alleviating the nation’s
between grades and levels (Maehr & Midgley, dropout problem and increasing educational
1996; Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Sizer, 1992). opportunities for all youth.
Research directions include examining the influ-
ence of these and other factors to determine how
they create and build self-efficacy for learners. References
Another area deserving attention is the self-
efficacy of low-income students who have transi- Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Kabbani, N. (2001). The
tioned to better schools and are being socialized dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk
in new surroundings within school districts that factors at home and school. Teachers College Record,
103, 760–822.
favor economic integration. Kahlenberg (2004)
Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-
contended that lower-income students who attend American college student outcomes at predominately
middle-class and high-performing schools can White and historically Black public colleges and uni-
feel out of place because their peers have clearer versities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26–44.
Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals, values,
goals for their learning and are better prepared
and affects: Influences on student motivation. In P. A.
and more academically engaged. The culture of Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educa-
the school is unfamiliar to the lower-income pop- tional psychology (2nd ed., pp. 369–389). Mahwah,
ulation in other respects as well, in that parents NJ: Erlbaum.
Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, aca-
are likely more active in the school’s programs,
demic achievement, and the psychological well-being
and teachers generally are better qualified. Ways of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of
to raise the self-efficacy of low-income students Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 903–914.
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 233

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying Hardre, P., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out
84, 191–215. of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood 95, 347–356.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Horsford, S. D. (2010). Black superintendents on educat-
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and ing Black students in separate and unequal contexts.
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, Urban Review, 42(1), 58–79.
NJ: Prentice Hall. Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2),
New York: Freeman. 113–125.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic Hymel, S., Comfort, C., Schonert-Reichl, K., &
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. McDougall, P. (1996). Academic failure and school
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating compe- dropout: The influence of peers. In J. Juvonen & K. R.
tence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding
proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and children’s school adjustment (pp. 313–345).
Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, D. (2010). Programs and policies to assist high Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., &
school dropouts in the transition to adulthood. The Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-com-
Future of Children, 20(1), 89–108. petence and values: Gender and domain differences
Bloom, D., & Haskins, R. (2010). Helping high school across grades one to twelve. Child Development, 73,
dropouts improve their prospects [policy brief]. The 509–527.
Future of Children, 20(1), 1–8. Retrieved April 19, Jonson-Reid, M., Davis, L., Saunders, J., Williams, T., &
2010, from www.futureofchildren.org Williams, J. H. (2005). Academic self-efficacy among
Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation African American youths: Implications for school social
and motivation: A life-span perspective on under- work practice. Children and Schools, 27(1), 5–14.
achievement. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman Kahlenberg, R. D. (2004). America’s untapped resource:
(Eds.), Self regulation of learning and performance: Low-income students in higher education. Washington,
Issues and educational applications (pp. 45–73). DC: Century Foundation Press.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kerpelman, J. L., Eryigit, S., & Stephens, C. J. (2008).
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic African American adolescents’ future education orien-
status and child development. Annual Review of tation: Associations with self-efficacy, ethnic identity,
Psychology, 53, 371–399. and perceived parental support. Journal of Youth and
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, J. J. (1989). Adolescence, 37, 997–1008.
Early school dropout: Configurations and determi- Kim, U., & Park, Y. S. (2006). Factors influencing aca-
nants. Child Development, 60, 1437–1452. demic achievement in collectivist societies: The role
Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools. (2009, July 10). of self-, relational, and social efficacy. In F. Pajares &
AVID: Decade of college dreams. Retrieved April 20, T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents
2010, from http://www2.chccs.k12.nc.us/education/ (pp. 267–286). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid= Publishing.
73208& Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing
Coutinho, S. (2008). Self-efficacy, metacognition, and peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a
performance. North American Journal of Psychology, cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78,
10(1), 165–172. 1186–1203.
Cuban, L. (2010). As good as it gets: What school reform Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibson, E., Jr.
brought to Austin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University (1996). Peer networks and students’ classroom engage-
Press. ment during childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen &
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding
Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & children’s school adjustment (pp. 279–312). Cambridge,
N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychol- England: Cambridge University Press.
ogy: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality devel- King, J. E. (2005). Black education: A transformative
opment (5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley. research and action agenda for the new century.
Gibbons, M. M., & Shoffner, M. F. (2004). Prospective New York: Routledge.
first-generation college students: Meeting their needs Klassen, R. M. (2004a). A cross-cultural investigation of
through social cognitive career theory. Professional the efficacy beliefs of south Asian immigrant and
School Counseling, 8(1), 91–97. Anglo Canadian nonimmigrant early adolescents.
Gillock, K. L., & Reyes, O. (1999). Stress, support, and Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 731–742.
academic performance of urban, low-income, Klassen, R. M. (2004b). Optimism and realism: A review
Mexican–American adolescents. Journal of Youth and of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural perspective.
Adolescence, 28(2), 259–282. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 205–230.
234 D.H. Schunk and C.A. Mullen

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and
school: The role of school organization and structure. general mental ability in mathematical problem-solv-
American Educational Research Journal, 40, 353–393. ing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4),
Licht, B. G., & Kistner, J. A. (1986). Motivational prob- 426–443.
lems of learning-disabled children: Individual differ- Perry, J. C., DeWine, D. B., Duffy, R. D., & Vance, K. S.
ences and their implications for treatment. In J. K. (2007). The academic self-efficacy of urban youth:
Torgesen & B. W. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and A mixed-methods study of a school-to-work program.
educational perspectives on learning disabilities Journal of Career Development, 34, 103–126.
(pp. 225–255). Orlando, FL: Academic. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practi- on the role of student motivation in learning and teach-
cally useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: ing contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 667–686.
705–717. PR Newswire. (2009). Panel discussion on crisis of high
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school school dropouts and cost to our economy. Retrieved
cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. April 18, 2010, from http://www.forbes.com/feeds/
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success prnewswire/2010/02/24/prnewswire201002241350PR_
among ethnically diverse first-generation community NEWS_USPR_____DC60266.html
college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribu-
Education, 2(4), 243–250. tion of dropout and turnover rates among urban and
McInerney, D. M. (2004). A discussion of future time per- suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1),
spective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 39–67.
141–151. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects
McInerney, D. M., Hinkley, J., Dowson, M., & Van Etten, on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis.
S. (1998). Aboriginal, Anglo, and immigrant Australian Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93–105.
students’ motivational beliefs about personal academic Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and
success: Are there cultural differences? Journal of instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adap-
Educational Psychology, 90, 621–629. tation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applica-
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. tion (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press.
(2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences
and academic achievement. Annual Review of during children’s cognitive skill learning. American
Psychology, 57, 487–503. Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.
Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. J. (2004). A model of future- Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory
oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and
Psychology Review, 16(1), 9–33. self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational
Mullen, C. A., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). The role of pro- Psychology, 91, 251–260.
fessional learning community in dropout prevention. Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 8, 26–29. and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing inter-
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). ventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649).
A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling San Diego, CA: Academic.
Psychology, 38, 30–38. Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy devel-
Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1993). Preliminary findings opment in adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71–96).
Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 486–489. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Oettingen, G., & Zosuls, C. (2006). Self-efficacy of ado- Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence percep-
lescents across culture. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), tions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 245–266). Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motiva-
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. tion (pp. 85–104). New York: Guilford Press.
Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2009). Possible selves: From Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory.
content to process. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
& J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York:
mental simulation (pp. 373–394). New York: Routledge.
Psychology Press. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008).
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement set- Motivation in education: Theory, research, and appli-
tings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. cations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy Education.
research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Settersten, R. A., Jr., & Ray, B. (2010). What’s going on
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, with young people today? The long and twisting path
pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 19–41.
10 Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner 235

Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2001). The multivariate dimen- Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy
sionality of personal control and future time perspec- in school: Critical review of the literature and future
tive beliefs in achievement and self-regulation. directions. Review of Educational Research, 78,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 481–506. 751–796.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. Vick, R. M., & Packard, B. W.-L. (2008). Academic suc-
(2004). Placing motivation and future time perspec- cess strategy use among community-active urban
tive theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Psychology Review, 16(2), 121–139. Sciences, 30(4), 463–480.
Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s compromise: Redesigning the Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and
American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. academic performance at school. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motiva-
Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as tion (pp. 279–296). New York: Guilford Press.
organizational constructs in the dynamics of motiva- Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy
tional development. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M.
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revis-
New York: Routledge. ited (pp. 165–198). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Publishing.
Minority-status stresses and the college adjustment of Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical
ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.
Education, 64(4), 434–452. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005).
work-related performances: A meta-analysis. Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677–706.
Steinberg, L., Brown, B. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation:
Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regula-
Schuster. tion (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Dropout preven- Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2009). Motives to self-
tion (pp. 1–66). [Institute of Education Sciences]. regulate learning: A social cognitive account. In K. R.
Retrieved March 14, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motiva-
ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/dp_pg_090308.pdf tion at school (pp. 247–264). New York: Routledge.